Is the attack on teldrassil really that unjustified?

[Steampunkette]

Telling you to read the book and check the sequence = insulting intelligence?

Telling you that this is a business based video game based on a fantasy land, and taking it so seriously is ad hominem?

We agreed to disagree. You got upset and pointed out that my morals are skewed based off fictional characters. I corrected your course (or tried to). If that is insulting then honestly lol we dont need to continue this further.

Gaslighting would make more sense if I hadn't directly quoted your post.

And no I'm not stating that your morality is skewed off fictional characters. I'm saying if you are incapable of separating morality and motivation then your understanding of morality is flawed. If vengeance is an acceptable justification for committing a war crime and leading uncounted people to their deaths then your morality is skewed at least one deviation from standard. However initially I thought it was you not understanding that I was discussing the difference between motivation and morality.

If you do understand the difference then you must admit that Genn either committed an immoral action based on a common understanding of moral philosophy or that he committed no immoral action because your personal moral philosophy allows for vengeance for crimes committed against yourself and your people to justify war crimes, murder, and betrayal.

So I will ask again, are we agreeing to disagree whether or not the action was moral? Not understandable, not motivated, but moral.

If you're unwilling to answer this question I understand, but I would ask that you not insult my intelligence further by pretending that you did not derogate me any longer.

[Tabrotar]

I already countered this argument. Knock yourself out, here it is:

No she agreed because she hoped it would fail, after she witnessed that there´re Forsaken who want to see their familys she just used Calia as a oppurtunity to just cull them all because (just back at you did you even read the book "mate"): I can´t allow them to feel hope and happyness or they would not longer follow me.

[Super Dickmann]

No she agreed because she hoped it would fail, after she witnessed that there´re Forsaken who want to see their familys she just used Calia as a oppurtunity to just cull them all because (just back at you did you even read the book "mate"): I can´t allow them to feel hope and happyness or they would not longer follow me.

And? None of that disproves a word I'm saying. I'm telling you she was justified in killing them given the information she had. Her stated intention while killing them was that they were accessories to Calia's coup. It's in the excerpts if you haven't read the book. She only figures out they aren't after she's killed them and Calia and it doesn't really matter.

[Steampunkette]

No she agreed because she hoped it would fail, after she witnessed that there´re Forsaken who want to see their familys she just used Calia as a oppurtunity to just cull them all because (just back at you did you even read the book "mate"): I can´t allow them to feel hope and happyness or they would not longer follow me.

After Annie came back from the wall Sylvanas was the sorrowful and Vindicated. In the following page her internal monologue expresses that she will have to do nothing to destroy the desolate Council. That the division between those who were rejected and those who were accepted will destroy it from inside and she will not have to lift a finger. When Calia appears on the battlefield Sylvanas is reaction to kill everyone is based on her belief that anduin was attempting to create a civil war in order to initiate a coup against her.

It had nothing to do with the forsaken feeling generic hope or happiness. It had to do with the specific hope of defecting or starting a civil war. If she didn't want them to be happy and return she would have just killed them instead of blowing the horn to bring them back. The horn was to test for defectors. Sylvanas doesn't need an excuse to kill her own people. She could have simply claimed that the desolate council members were defecting and killed them instead of blowing the horn to see if they really were defecting.

Read the book more closely.

[Tabrotar]

Gaslighting would make more sense if I hadn't directly quoted your post.

And no I'm not stating that your morality is skewed off fictional characters. I'm saying if you are incapable of separating morality and motivation then your understanding of morality is flawed. If vengeance is an acceptable justification for committing a war crime and leading uncounted people to their deaths then your morality is skewed at least one deviation from standard. However initially I thought it was you not understanding that I was discussing the difference between motivation and morality.

If you do understand the difference then you must admit that Genn either committed an immoral action based on a common understanding of moral philosophy or that he committed no immoral action because your personal moral philosophy allows for vengeance for crimes committed against yourself and your people to justify war crimes, murder, and betrayal.

So I will ask again, are we agreeing to disagree whether or not the action was moral? Not understandable, not motivated, but moral.

If you're unwilling to answer this question I understand, but I would ask that you not insult my intelligence further by pretending that you did not derogate me any longer.

You mean after Blizz stated that the Aszuna happend before Stormheim and we clearly got info that she was up to no good his attack wasn´t justified?

With all the fucking things the Horde has done before (and especially what she has done) his attack wasn´t justified (which it was after all)?

[Super Dickmann]

You mean after Blizz stated that the Aszuna happend before Stormheim (which it was after all)?

Source: The most cavernous reaches of your rectum. I linked the text multiple times and no Alliance poster has been able to counter it because its meaning is obvious.

Sky Admiral Rogers says: We are to track them from a safe distance. We may engage, but only if the situation demands.
Sky Admiral Rogers says: I strongly suspect the situation will demand it.
Genn Greymane says: It had better.
Genn Greymane says: I am not in the habit of tracking prey unless I intend on killing it.

Later he has no idea what he's looking at with Eyir and the tomb and has to learn it from the shields and all this. He attacked because he wanted to kill Sylvanas. He directly says this.

[Lupinemancer]

The Horde did it, so of course it's unjustified.

[iamthedevil]

Both Horde and Alliance do some things they shouldn't, but Horde looks like the bad guys because they are the ones that actually end up successfully completing their mission. Alliance always fails to follow through.

[Minikin]

Gaslighting would make more sense if I hadn't directly quoted your post.

And no I'm not stating that your morality is skewed off fictional characters. I'm saying if you are incapable of separating morality and motivation then your understanding of morality is flawed. If vengeance is an acceptable justification for committing a war crime and leading uncounted people to their deaths then your morality is skewed at least one deviation from standard. However initially I thought it was you not understanding that I was discussing the difference between motivation and morality.

If you do understand the difference then you must admit that Genn either committed an immoral action based on a common understanding of moral philosophy or that he committed no immoral action because your personal moral philosophy allows for vengeance for crimes committed against yourself and your people to justify war crimes, murder, and betrayal.

So I will ask again, are we agreeing to disagree whether or not the action was moral? Not understandable, not motivated, but moral.

If you're unwilling to answer this question I understand, but I would ask that you not insult my intelligence further by pretending that you did not derogate me any longer.

None of my post was aimed at your intelligence, niether did I derogate you. Me saying follow alice into the rabbit hole bit along with quests is simply that to me you are not following the sequence. And we disagree on the depth of these characters.

To you it is disconcerting that I do not care for the morality of their actions. For me thinking past the initial layer that blizzard has placed upon these characters is time wasted.

Wasn't meant to imply that you are stupid heck I had to go look up what gaslighting meant.

If we take it from a lore point of view. Stormhiem was more the story of the forsaken with sylvannas looking for a solution and Genn being a thorn in her side. You can call it war crime or w.e but there was and is no peace between the alliance and the horde. He is a king and she is warchief. They are more than capable of duking it out. Where does them dueling make it a warcrime? Was Garrosh and Varian fighting in dalaran in Wotlk a warcrime? Was Garrosh and Taran fighting a war crime? These are just random duels. This would be a warcrime if it was totally unprovoked (highly debatable given what happened to Genn in gilneas), or if there was genocide (not done by the gilneas people) or of peace was called (wasn't).

Was it moral? In the shadow of a legion invasion? No. But it's not as simple as that. You could say well sylvannas is a bitch and Genn will be the bigger person abd keep the bigger picture in mind. But no that would be wierd as hell and he's not Anduin. Which takes us to the next part

Does what Genn did make sense? 100% it does.

[Whitedragon]

Just think about it, they wanted peace after MoP And They Had it, what did the alliance do in the meantime?

They wanted peace so bad that they Directly Attack the Alliance force in Ashran, because the Alliance forces where looking for something to cambat the Iron horde....

Jaina threatens to end the horde and tries to convince Varian to kill the horde leaders at the end of SoO

Looks like spearing the horde and hopeing for peace bit the Alliance in the but yet again.

Greymane assault horde troops unprovoked and loses the sky breaker

So lets ignore the Intel the worgen get out of Azuna I guess, but even then Genn may have saved us all from Sylvanas's greed, where in Odin decides to not give us the Aegis because we mortals stole one of his prized subjects from him and sided with Helya to do it no less...

Caila Menethil tries to cause mass rebelions and defections within lordaeron and the forsaken to the alliance

Ok two things, first Caila wasn't apart of the Allince during that. Second the forsaken where the ones who wanted to leave with their family members, Sylvanas perceives this as defection and kills everyone who wasn't fast enough to return to her camp, Caila tells them to run to stromguard none make it.

They attack and murder innocent goblin miners who are mining for Azerite

And the Horde murders Alliance SI:7 members who where acting passively to the goblins, and don't give me that innocent bunk ether. Sylvanas herself has made mention that she want's to make war on the alliance, and whats the first thing she dose with this stuff? oh ya build weapons with it, and lay siege to a world tree.

This was all after ensuing peace with the alliance after Garrosh. The Horde didn't provoke the alliance one more time after that

Except that one time they did in WoD.... and the very possible fact that they attacked the Alliance first In Silithus...

[Steampunkette]

You mean after Blizz stated that the Aszuna happend before Stormheim and we clearly got info that she was up to no good his attack wasn´t justified?

With all the fucking things the Horde has done before (and especially what she has done) his attack wasn´t justified (which it was after all)?

No his attack was not justified to even with Azsuna. Anduin knew about that log and ordered Genn and Rogers to follow Sylvanas and only intervene if necessary. Immediately upon finding the ship they opened fire do to their own personal biases. Their attack was not justified in that it was a war crime, perfidy to be exact, an unprovoked attack, and a direct betrayal of the high King's orders. Only after the fact, after continued attacks, after the entire zone of stormheim was finished, did Sylvanas act in a way that would have Justified an attack on her person.

It was only in Eyir's presence that Sylvanas committed any act which would justify attempting to kill her. An intervention being necessary at that point. Everything before that was unjustified hostility. And in that situation, when he would finally be justified in killing Sylvanas according to basic moral philosophy, he instead chooses to just stop her.

At each encounter he had a choice whether to act morally or immorally. And it was not until the end that he acted in a moral manner.

[Logwyn]

The True Leader and Heir of the Kingdom of Lordaeron has been revealed. Sylvanas is a pretender. The true Queen of Lordaeron and leader of the forsaken is here. Sylvanas and her psycho banshee ways are at an end.

LONG LIVE CALIA MENETHILL!! LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!!

[Volitar]

Nothing is justified with the awful writing in this game!

[Tabrotar]

Source: The most cavernous reaches of your rectum. I linked the text multiple times and no Alliance poster has been able to counter it because its meaning is obvious.

Oh look i´m out of arguments i have to fall back on personal attacks to make it seem like i have something to say...

[Super Dickmann]

Oh look i´m out of arguments i have to fall back on personal attacks to make it seem like i have something to say...

Pot = kettle, you know the drill. Answer my last two posts and we'll get somewhere.

[Steampunkette]

Snip

talking down to me and telling me that Undead don't exist or that people don't melt when you yell at them is an insult to my intelligence or my sanity. It by its very nature presumes that I am unaware of The Facts of reality. If you cannot understand why is that would be insulting I really don't know how to explain to you where the insult comes from.

Thank you for at least admitting that Genn's actions were not moral. Which is the only point of contention that I had, and expressed repeatedly.

And we're done here.

[Tabrotar]

Pot = kettle, you know the drill. Answer my last two posts and we'll get somewhere.

Play the Alliance questline starting with Aszuna follow the story get send back to Dalaran turn your quest in and read the quest text. come back after that and see if you still talk like you now nothing about quest progression.

[Feanoro]

Oh look i´m out of arguments i have to fall back on personal attacks to make it seem like i have something to say...

You noticed the pattern too? At least there's honesty in the choice of username.

[Super Dickmann]

Play the Alliance questline starting with Aszuna follow the story get send back to Dalaran turn your quest in and read the quest text. come back after that and see if you still talk like you now nothing about quest progression.

You can do the quests in any order. You said Blizzard confirmed the order, which is a lie. Further, you failed to counter anything in the quote I provided which shows that Eyir didn't come up at all in their reasoning for the attack and that Genn was later completely ignorant of what Sylvanas was there for up until the complete tail end of the zone. Genn attacked her because he had an opportunity and says so in inarguable terms.

[Feanoro]

Resorting to ad hominem attacks, and insulting my intelligence or sanity in the process, does not contribute meaningfully to this discussion.

But attacking someone's sense of morality over what you perceive to be war crimes in a fictional setting definitely contributes and is in no way hypocritical.